0
billvon

Deniers getting pretty desperate

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote


The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.



so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years.

Has a slightly different ring to it...



11 years is the solar sunspot cycle.

Which is why periods longer than 11 years need to be examined. You are as intellectually dishonest as mnealtx in taking 1998 as a starting point when it was an el Nino year.



I selected no starting point - Bill did here. I just rephrased the sentences for an equally accurate truth.

It may be hot where you are, but it's not in San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for
>40 years.

They never "leveled out." Look at the graph. Average temperatures have been incredibly noisy, because it's an inherently noisy system. El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, global wind circulation patterns, ice coverage, land use, high altitude particulates, even 11 year solar cycles all affect the climate in a way that looks pretty chaotic.

However, there was a massive peak in 1880 that was not exceeded again for even longer - 60 years. Then there was another peak around 1945 that was not exceeded for 38 years. Then there was a peak in 1998 that was not exceeded for 7 years. Notice a pattern? It's almost as if that chaotic system now has an underlying slope that's getting stronger.

And here's a prediction for you - we'll see another record year pretty soon (2012 is breaking records so far) and then there will be another stretch - 5 years? 6 years? - where temperatures average lower. And RushMC will post "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2012!" And MnealTX will post "oh yeah? If CO2 is a problem, and it's been rising the whole time, then why wasn't 2013 warmer than 2012?"

And average temperatures will continue to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And average temperatures will continue to rise.



Until they dont

The point is, there is nothing we can do about it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for
>40 years.

They never "leveled out." Look at the graph. Average temperatures have been incredibly noisy, because it's an inherently noisy system. El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, global wind circulation patterns, ice coverage, land use, high altitude particulates, even 11 year solar cycles all affect the climate in a way that looks pretty chaotic.

However, there was a massive peak in 1880 that was not exceeded again for even longer - 60 years. Then there was another peak around 1945 that was not exceeded for 38 years. Then there was a peak in 1998 that was not exceeded for 7 years. Notice a pattern? It's almost as if that chaotic system now has an underlying slope that's getting stronger.

And here's a prediction for you - we'll see another record year pretty soon (2012 is breaking records so far) and then there will be another stretch - 5 years? 6 years? - where temperatures average lower. And RushMC will post "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2012!" And MnealTX will post "oh yeah? If CO2 is a problem, and it's been rising the whole time, then why wasn't 2013 warmer than 2012?"



And you, kallend and the rest of the Church of CO2 adherents will continue to ignore the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the fact that there was CO2 levels several times higher than today's *during glacial periods* while still claiming "It's all due to the manmade CO2"!!!!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

John: perhpas I'm limited by my blackberry but I'm having a hard time finding your sulfate aerosols cite.



The gist is that a huge increase in air pollution (particularly aerosols from industrial processes) during and after WWII increased albedo. The pollution also caused other problems such as acid rain, resulting in pollution controls that reduced the aerosol levels starting in the mid 1970s.

There isn't only one factor determining global temperatures. When known, measurable factors such as aerosols, el-Nino/la-Nina events, volcanism, etc, are accounted for, there is a very steady long term trend of temeperature increase.



So, show the events that ended the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods.



More desperation. No-one has claimed that there isn't natural variation in climate. AGW is superimposed on that.

All you do is try lamely to throw dust in the air.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for
>40 years.

They never "leveled out." Look at the graph. Average temperatures have been incredibly noisy, because it's an inherently noisy system. El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, global wind circulation patterns, ice coverage, land use, high altitude particulates, even 11 year solar cycles all affect the climate in a way that looks pretty chaotic.

However, there was a massive peak in 1880 that was not exceeded again for even longer - 60 years. Then there was another peak around 1945 that was not exceeded for 38 years. Then there was a peak in 1998 that was not exceeded for 7 years. Notice a pattern? It's almost as if that chaotic system now has an underlying slope that's getting stronger.

And here's a prediction for you - we'll see another record year pretty soon (2012 is breaking records so far) and then there will be another stretch - 5 years? 6 years? - where temperatures average lower. And RushMC will post "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2012!" And MnealTX will post "oh yeah? If CO2 is a problem, and it's been rising the whole time, then why wasn't 2013 warmer than 2012?"



And you, kallend and the rest of the Church of CO2 adherents will continue to ignore the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the fact that there was CO2 levels several times higher than today's *during glacial periods* while still claiming "It's all due to the manmade CO2"!!!!



And we now know, that contrary to your earlier claims, that a rise in CO2 led the end of the last ice age.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

More desperation. No-one has claimed that there isn't natural variation in climate. AGW is superimposed on that.



Uh-huh. Maybe you should let Trenberth know that, then he won't be wondering where the heat is.

All you do is try lamely to throw dust in the air.



No, that's YOUR gig. "It *HAS* to be CO2...there's no way it can be from natural variation"!!!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No reason it should be monotonic.



absolutely. However, if it was monotonic, I'd blame global warming for it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And we now know, that contrary to your earlier claims, that a rise in CO2 led the end of the last ice age.



Oh, you mean that paper you trumpeted over that stated:

"Substantial temperature change at all latitudes
(Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a),
precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago,
suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming
.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

More desperation. No-one has claimed that there isn't natural variation in climate. AGW is superimposed on that.



Uh-huh. Maybe you should let Trenberth know that, then he won't be wondering where the heat is.

All you do is try lamely to throw dust in the air.



No, that's YOUR gig. "It *HAS* to be CO2...there's no way it can be from natural variation"!!!



What a STUPID comment. You are losing it.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What a STUPID comment. You are losing it.



You're right... blaming it on CO2 *IS* a stupid comment.



And mnealtx resorts to the rubber/glue 4th grade debating style, as he always does when he runs out of ideas.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And we now know, that contrary to your earlier claims, that a rise in CO2 led the end of the last ice age.



Oh, you mean that paper you trumpeted over that stated:

"Substantial temperature change at all latitudes
(Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a),
precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago,
suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming
.



Nice out-of-context quote. Expected from you.

www.rtcc.org/learning/research-breakthrough-co2-rises-caused-warming-that-ended-last-ice-age/
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

What a STUPID comment. You are losing it.



You're right... blaming it on CO2 *IS* a stupid comment.



And mnealtx resorts to the rubber/glue 4th grade debating style, as he always does when he runs out of ideas.



And kallend resort to 4th grade insults when he can't rebut.

So, show us how the recoveries from Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods were natural variation, but the temps NOW are because of manmade CO2.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

And we now know, that contrary to your earlier claims, that a rise in CO2 led the end of the last ice age.



Oh, you mean that paper you trumpeted over that stated:

"Substantial temperature change at all latitudes
(Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a),
precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago,
suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming
.



Nice out-of-context quote. Expected from you.

www.rtcc.org/learning/research-breakthrough-co2-rises-caused-warming-that-ended-last-ice-age/



Not *MY* fault that it shot your argument down.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What a STUPID comment. You are losing it.



You're right... blaming it on CO2 *IS* a stupid comment.



And mnealtx resorts to the rubber/glue 4th grade debating style, as he always does when he runs out of ideas.



And kallend resort to 4th grade insults when he can't rebut.

So, show us how the recoveries from Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods were natural variation, but the temps NOW are because of manmade CO2.



You REALLY can't comprehend, or you are deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I strongly suspect the latter.

At least you no longer reflexively resort to the "CO2 lags heating" mantra that you so often used in the past, before it was thoroughly debunked, or quoting ice cover over only part of Antarctica but suggesting it was over all of Antarctica.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You REALLY can't comprehend, or you are deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I strongly suspect the latter.



I *KNOW* you're the latter. If you were honest, you'd admit that there's no clear evidence that AGW is affecting temperatures, only suppositions and possibilities.

Quote

At least you no longer reflexively resort to the "CO2 lags heating" mantra that you so often used in the past, before it was thoroughly debunked



By your paper above, stating that heating preceded CO2? Yup, that was just *devastating*.

Quote

or quoting ice cover over only part of Antarctica but suggesting it was over all of Antarctica.



You mean the ice extent graphs that come from the same folks as the Arctic graphs you like to show?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]The gist is that a huge increase in air pollution (particularly aerosols from industrial processes) during and after WWII increased albedo. The pollution also caused other problems such as acid rain, resulting in pollution controls that reduced the aerosol levels starting in the mid 1970s.



Absolutely. This is far from new but was the basis of the whole "global cooling" stuff that the press made so big in the seventies. In fact, I mentioned this exact thing back in 2009. [Url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3614318#3614318[/url]

It also depends on the aerosol. Black carbon increases absorption. But in terms of fighting AGW, there is little that could be more effective that sulfate aerosols. Of course it leads to acid rain and increased acidity of every body of water, but it's still damned good at increasing albedo. You mentioned the acid rain.

An issue, though, is the factoring in. I don't doubt that the decrease of industrial aerosols has resulted in cleaner air and that it results in some mitigation of greenhouse gas forcings. It's pretty clear when looking at what happens to the temperature record when a big volcano blows (Krakatao, Pinatubo. Mt. St. Helens was impressive but was actually comparaticely small).

It leads me to wonder whether industrial aerosol emissions from Asia and other developing countries is polluting the air enough to keep the climate from spiking.

But it's the factoring and accounting that concerns me. They come down to what are really scientific wild ass guesses. The interactions of all those forcings are really tough to factor accurately.

Could we face the choice of "coastal inundation versus acid rain, and mitigate the acid rain?" Possible. Would that be less disruptive? Who knows? I actually think that ultimately this is where the discussion may end up going.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Could we face the choice of "coastal inundation versus acid rain, and mitigate the acid
>rain?" Possible. Would that be less disruptive? Who knows? I actually think that
>ultimately this is where the discussion may end up going.

Yes, I think that the future holds many such decisions. I am glad that people are starting to talk about them more calmly. (Although "inundation" might be a bit strong . . .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Tell me why the temperatures leveled out during that period. Was it due to less solar activity?



Because the average temperature trend is not monotonic (due to variance and confounding variables), we can select a short time period with endpoints chosen specifically to "show" that the average global temperature was not increasing over that period. The greater the variance from one time period to the next (in this case, from one year to the next), the more important it is to use longer time periods if we wish to observe any statistically significant trends that may exist.

In other words, short time periods of 10-15 years are pretty useless for observing long term temperature trends.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Tell me why the temperatures leveled out during that period. Was it due to less solar activity?



Because the average temperature trend is not monotonic (due to variance and confounding variables), we can select a short time period with endpoints chosen specifically to "show" that the average global temperature was not increasing over that period. The greater the variance from one time period to the next (in this case, from one year to the next), the more important it is to use longer time periods if we wish to observe any statistically significant trends that may exist.

In other words, short time periods of 10-15 years are pretty useless for observing long term temperature trends.



So statistics caused the temperatures to flatten out and not some environmental reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Tell me why the temperatures leveled out during that period. Was it due to less solar activity?



Because the average temperature trend is not monotonic (due to variance and confounding variables), we can select a short time period with endpoints chosen specifically to "show" that the average global temperature was not increasing over that period. The greater the variance from one time period to the next (in this case, from one year to the next), the more important it is to use longer time periods if we wish to observe any statistically significant trends that may exist.

In other words, short time periods of 10-15 years are pretty useless for observing long term temperature trends.



So statistics caused the temperatures to flatten out and not some environmental reason?



By carefully selecting beginning and endpoints of a short time period, we can "see" a trend of level temperatures that isn't really there. It's a neat trick to fool people who don't understand statistical analysis well enough to understand what is going on.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0